Aavgotchi $COLLAB Airdrop Distribution Proposal

Aavegotchi received 2,410,337 $COLLAB tokens (currently worth ~$69,500) via the Top 100 Discord Communities Airdrop mechanism. In order to claim these tokens, we need to put up a proposal to Collab Land, outlining our distribution mechanism. Here is the example template:

ㆍProject Name:
ㆍAuthor Name:
ㆍNumber of COLLAB tokens requested:
ㆍRecipient Address:

Proposal for token distribution (under 1000 words):
ㆍHow will the tokens be distributed?

Mechanism for distribution
User group being targeted

ㆍHow many users is this distribution projected to incentivize?
ㆍHow will this distribution incentivize usage and adoption of Collab.Land?
ㆍWhat is the benefit of this distribution?

To Collab.Land
To your community
ㆍWill your project provide any co-incentives?
ㆍWhere will tokens be held once distributed by Collab.Land DAO? (Multisig, onchain DAO, etc)

I have 2 ideas for the distribution, one being a more creative play from some discord discussions (A) and one being the “safe” play (B)

Plan A:

Mechanism for distribution: Fund the Forge Team to create a Collab.Land robot wearable for the pet slot (50%) Pixel Craft for technical lift (25%) Dao treasury for future use (20%) Dao treasury for participating in $collab governance (5%)

Timeline: Would need input from the Forge team & PC here

Target: Seeing intel here for exact figures to include all unique holders of assets ($ghst, gotchis, land) and cross reference that with wallets that hold $collab. X amount of wallets unfamiliar with collab land plus the one’s currently holding, who would be interested in a collab branded pet. Additional benefit of an ever-lasting piece of the Gotchiverse being dedicated to Collab Land + continued visibility & recognition vs a one off vanilla distribution.

Co-Incentives: Aavegotchi would not provide any direct incentives. However, this would incentivize forge usage, which benefits the Aavegotchi Dao (bazaar fees, alloy burn).

Where: Tokens would be distributed to the Forge team, PC, & the Aavegotchi Dao treasury.

Plan B:

Mechanism for distribution: Blacksmithing RF farming category (70% roughly $50k) DAO treasury for future use (15%) Pixel Craft (10%) DAO treasury for participating in $collab governance (5%)

Timeline: The community is already in the process of drafting the proposal for RF6, and I think we can expect RF6 to start around May or June, ending early summer to mid summer. The 70% RF farming would be distributed along with $ghst at the end of each snapshot.

Target/Benefit: Use same intel about wallets from Plan A, but added value of possibly larger distribution due to the amount of wallets participating/able to participate in RF.

Co-Incentives: For the RF rewards, Aavegotchi would provide $ghst tokens in addition to $collab for the celebration of the new category.

-I personally would be in favor of nerfing the BRS rewards a bit since that’s mainly a whale category and distributing a chunk from that pool.

Where: Tokens would be held in the player rewards wallet controlled by the DAO, as well as the DAO treasury & PC’s wallets.

My biggest unknown is if the funding I have for tech lifts on the Forge side & PC side is appropriate enough for plan A, so would love input there, as well as a possible timeline.

1 Like


$69,500 x 0.5 = $34750 for 1 pet schematic and pixel art of 1 pet. The said artist can be hired for 6 month for 36,000 x ghst price

$69,500 x 0.25= $17,375 for technical lift on a pet slot that already exist and probably require 0 change to have 1 pet added

What is collab land policy in regards to commercial use of their mascot? Any copyright issue?

What do you think would be appropriate? $5k for forge? $1k PC? I have no strong opinions on this, so I am open to whatever the community thinks.

Good question, I’ll try to find out.

I am not sure as well tbh. Maybe our community artist can advice on that or place competing bids

1 Like

I am in touch with the collab land team and have invited them to chime in here. Seems a licensing deal may be necessary, so I asked what would be needed from us and a ballpark for fee/royal split. If we are lowering Forge & PC distributions, we can use those extra funds there for a licensing fee, if it’s not royalty split.

Could not we just sell the tokens to help fund a liquidity pool?

what do you mean? $ghst liquidity on QS & Balancer?

I would go the QS route because we have quite a bit on Balancer. Do you know the status with Aave?

Well this proposal has to go to Collab Land, and they have to approve it. I have a feeling they are not going to approve that.

On aave: They just put a “soft freeze” on ghst this month & the initial idea was put up by Marc, so gonna be some time before any parameter changes.

1 Like

Ok i was unaware that we had to apply to get the tokens. Thought they were just going to give us the tokens. :sweat_smile:

75% DAO
25% PC
D (my vote)
100% DAO, and then we decide what to do with tokens.
Since it’s a token for the DAOs communities, I don’t like the idea of using it to fuel Forge business, that’s already on it’s own track, and we don’t want to pull them legs.
Collab.land could be honored anytime later, via anything else. “Teacher, leave the pets alone” :grin:
P.s. Collab.land didn’t even ask for honor :wink: But, yet, I don’t think it’s a right time to get busy with that.


We need to propose a distribution to Collab land. A proposal stating “we’re going to distribute 100% of these tokens to the dao and decide later” is not a proposal that is going to pass.

Can’t we just pass on the tokens to the people who were responsible for AavegotchiDAO receiving them in the first place? Should be pretty easy to check which accounts linked their wallets to collab land and sending them some/most of the tokens.


We have to put up a proposal to the Collab Land team, and it has to be approved for distribution. If you or someone else wants a vanilla distribution to dump, than by all means, be my guest and write it. I personally don’t need the $20 of $Collab or whatever tiny amount it would be in this sort of distribution. I think we’re better off using it to drive value to our eco vs something like this.